wikialityfandomcom-20200214-history
Wikiality talk:Sound Advice
Idea Take it or leave it, but I was thinking Peer Review could be called Wikiality.com's Sound Advice (like Stephen's Sound Advice) instead. --Esteban Colberto 14:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC) :I like it!--thisniss 04:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC) ::Me too... especially since I don't consider you guys my peers... '--Alethic Logic 17:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)' Image:Wikiality_Sound_Advice.jpg|I thought we might use a graphic like this. Image:Wikiality_Sound_Advice2.jpg|or this --Esteban Colberto 01:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC) :::I like the one without Stephen's pic only because it won't get confused with Stephen's Sound Advice. Nicely done.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 01:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC) How Long Should An Article Stay on Peer Review? Now, for the rules, I think it should be something people come up with themselves. Perhaps, what we can do is on a case-by-case basis is keep a page in Peer Review until most people say it is ready, or for as long as the original author wants it to be there. Question Since Peer Review is now part of the process for nominating an article for "Featured Article" voting, I'm wondering: #How does an article "pass" Peer Review? #Does an article have to be "done" in order to be nominated? (And what counts as "done")? #Who decides when 1 & 2 are fulfilled? I think it would be helpful to clarify the process a bit more, especially since this is new for all of us. --thisniss 19:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Who Decides? I think, people who review should decide if it is ready. I just don't want to get people's hopes up to have them dashed during the nomination process because the article wasn't quite ready.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Reply This all makes good sense to me. My main concern in asking the questions was to figure out whether we were looking for some "official" mark of approval, or whether this process was more a way of working through pieces to get them ready to nominate for Features (or even just to make them better - personally I feel like we should be able to put pieces up for Peer Review even if we don't plan on nominating them, just because we want them to be good). If the consensus is that the author or authors of the piece can decide when they are "finished" based on the comments of reviewers, that's good enough for me. Unless other people feel differently??? --thisniss 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC) :I know this is old, but I'm not sure if this has all been worked out. My feeling is that no page passes or fails peer review. If they participate, they are made a Truthiness Monkey in Training. They can nominate it for a feature if they wish or put it up for review again after revision, Heroes should have a general sense of how the article will fare based on the comments. At some point, we can make people full truthiness monkeys and they can skip peer review. --Esteban Colberto 19:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Why Peer Review Was Started Minor details are not my thing, babe...but, since you asked, let me 'splain a little about this...initially we just nominated stuff and people voted yes or no. I tried to encourage new people to get their stuff on the front page, and a few tried. However, some of the new people posted their stuff and it was shot down, making the new person miserable. and damaging their self-esteem. You don't see those people any more. So, I tried to figure out a way to help people get feedback for their stuff, without the humiliation of being shot down.